Rendlesham Forest…, A Christmas Story from 1980 - Can We ‘Let it Be’?

originally posted by: Gaos0
...So if Jim had lifted these glyphs from this company's equipment, why would he want to bring MY attention to this?
According to Jim, it is the other way around.

Maybe a page from Scientology tactics: Attack the damaging information before it becomes public knowledge in an attempt to confuse and mitigate the damage? That didn't occur to you? Not saying that's it, but I do wonder about your investigative ability if that didn't cross your mind as a possibility. I'd be careful, Gary, and I'm in no way being a smart ass. Your credibility is on the line and there's already a lot of convincing criticism that is going to increasingly come up and have to be answered. Arbrigateur's info on the coordinates is highly compelling. Your belief that is doesn't matter where the info came from because it's meaningful to you is so laden with the possibility for professional disaster that I'm amazed you aren't more on guard.

Gary, this is not going to sit with serious ones on this case as well meaning
you may be on this. Facts are facts and its a public case there is a high level
of scrutiny and will continue and could worsen as time continues.

We have just now seen a machine with Jims glyphs on and we cant even
get a simple answer out of that now. But yet the public are asked to consider
without question the binary codes and all other things?? This is not reasonable Gary even from
my perspective who knows such much on all of this.

Obviously many things are frustrating, but questions are questions and should
be answered effectively and easily, there should be no major issues.

IMHO.

a reply to: The GUT

Quote...Maybe a page from Scientology tactics: Attack the damaging information before it becomes public knowledge in an attempt to confuse and mitigate the damage? That didn't occur to you? end quote.

It certainly crossed my mind.

a reply to: The GUT

"Your credibility is on the line and there's already a lot of convincing criticism that is going to increasingly come up and have to be answered."
"Your belief that is doesn't matter where the info came from because it's meaningful to you is so laden with the possibility for professional disaster that I'm amazed you aren't more on guard."

Really! My credibility is on the line . . . "possibility of professional disaster."
You have no idea what I have personally discovered - and that includes things that are not directly related to the Binary Code. I am confident in my work - always have been.
You also write as if this is gravely serious and a "matter of life and death," which is comical. What are you trying to prove?
Let's think about that? What are you getting out of this personally by pointing those things out to me? Why do you so want to believe that this is all a hoax? What are you afraid of?

You do realise that I could easily turn my back on it if I wished, which means I keep what I have discovered to myself, as is my right, and you and others who have not bothered to work it out yourselves - and possibly because you don't have the aptitude for it - would be none the wiser. That's the point here. You think you are intelligent enough to tell me what's what, then work it out yourself and see why I take the position that you are saying is "laden with the possibility of professional disaster" . . . that's laughable actually.

Also, show me the 'convincing' criticism that leads to what exactly? That Jim created it? With respect to Jim, that would really surprise me. If that turned out to be true then that would be more incredible than the belief that Jim created it.

a reply to: Gaos0

Hi Gary,

As I said earlier I don't see any need to debate certain things with you any more. I am sure you are already aware of all the craziness that surrounds the Rendlesham case.

Most of us on this forum come from the angle of dissecting UFO cases and the history of the phenomena. But I suspect this is not the angle you are coming from when it comes to the Rendlesham case?

Would I be correct in saying you have only a modicum of interest in the (UFO) topic?

.

I get the impression John could be wanting a closer examination into the witness statements
Just an observation re comments that I see.

Also when it comes to the new story re the symbols
It has the potential to change Jims story entirely
dependant on what can be confirmed by that company.
That is potentially serious.

As far as John "debunking". What I have seen is John mention there are some
new things found in the notebook. Whilst I don't subscribe to any of the ufo
shows in general. I for one would be interested in learning what may be new
in these alleged findings?

a reply to: mirageman

Hi mirageman,

I do have an interest like I have an interest in most things, but I am always cautious about belief. I mean this in the sense that it's best to remain centred and as neutral and detached as you can from these subjects - and that includes your research and findings. An analogy is standing at the centre of a circular room with all these doors leading off from it. Each of those doors and what lies beyond them is a "reality tunnel," which can trick you into believing that this is the way to Truth. You can open the doors and peer down them to see what they may contain and may be there, but always stay in that room and don't wander down any of these tunnels (reality tunnels), or you will become lost. The truth is you are already where the truth is, you just have to know it because really the answers can always be found inside yourself.

a reply to: Marylongstockings

My view is, that John's recent associations with certain people, makes his shifted position on the code suspect. I hope I am wrong, but it would appear that his fallout with Jim, his animosity towards him and now me (I might add), and his obvious 'sour grapes' on not being part of the binary code - in that he cannot make it about him anymore - is being taken advantage of to serve other people's agendas in further undermining the credibility of Jim's side of the story. In other words, he is most likely now a 'useful idiot.'

a reply to: Gaos0

I mean this in the sense that it's best to remain centred and as neutral and detached as you can from these subjects

I think we actually agree on something .

I like that analogy. I always say look at things with an open mind but a sceptical eye. But it's often a difficult thing to do. Because we are human and we act on our own hunches and perceptions and often become defensive when it looks like we could be 'wrong' on something.

a reply to: mirageman

I'm pleased we agree on that. My view is, that while skepticism might appear to be the enemy of open-mindedness, smart, intelligent people who display a healthy and ‘balanced’ skepticism are careful not to close themselves off to new ideas or opportunities and are always open and willing to accept and consider other views and alternative solutions. The key is being amenable to considering new ideas, as long as they’re backed by supporting facts.

originally posted by: Gaos0
a reply to: Marylongstockings

My view is, that John's recent associations with certain people, makes his shifted position on the code suspect. I hope I am wrong, but it would appear that his fallout with Jim, his animosity towards him and now me (I might add), and his obvious 'sour grapes' on not being part of the binary code - in that he cannot make it about him anymore - is being taken advantage of to serve other people's agendas in further undermining the credibility of Jim's side of the story. In other words, he is most likely now a 'useful idiot.'

Lets be specific Gary because all of that element is part of this case
Would you be referring to Dr Kit Green, Puthoff and others? and if
so what are the concerns ?

You say shifted position. I think more like he has found further information which
might lead to some other areas in this case. It might be worth attention and important.

John is a dark horse when it comes to some things, much like Jim. Both keep some
things close to their vests, this I do know hence why I don't believe all things will
be told.

Perhaps John actually has something of his own in the way of information, remember
according to Jim , he was sure John had a download of information.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

How does this one get addressed??

a reply to: Guest101

And this one, how does one progress with this one now if
Jim does not want to discuss it.

a reply to: Marylongstockings

Can't you people think straight?
Going by what Jim has said, which I now take seriously:
Despite what the witnesses wrote initially, or what you see stated, if the so-called "witness statements" were written or typed out for the witnesses, and if in some cases the witnesses were also told 'what' to write, then that doesn't mean Chandler is a liar, and it's not accusing him of being a liar either.

originally posted by: Gaos0
a reply to: Marylongstockings

Can't you people think straight?
Going by what Jim has said, which I now take seriously:
Despite what the witnesses wrote initially, if the so-called "witness statements" were written or typed out for the witnesses, and if in some cases the witnesses were also told 'what' to write, then that doesn't mean Chandler is a liar, and it's not accusing him of being a liar either.

It doesn't make any sense to me to suggest that they were told to say he was 50 meters away from the object. If they wanted to cover something up they would tell them to say there was no object, so the "Can't you think straight?" question is reflected back to you to consider why of all things to ask the witnesses to say on falsified statements, they would have multiple witnesses say Penniston got 50 meters away from the object. That's basically a really dumb lie to propagate if they were told to lie, and makes no sense to me, so I think people suggesting that's a lie are the ones not thinking straight. Besides the stories are inconsistent, Penniston wasn't alone and nobody else said they were 50 meters away, did they? If you're going to make up lies for a story can't you at least make up consistent lies?

Obviously he wasn't 50 meters away and Chandler said that Penniston kept revising his distance estimate so let's tell Penniston to put the 50 meters lie in his statement, but to be inconsistent have nobody else repeat the same lie, and then let's prove the 50 meters is a lie we made up by having Chandler's statement go on to show he couldn't have been 50 meters away because he kept moving toward the object without revising his 50 meters distance estimate lower or reaching the object. It's not only a completely implausible idea, but totally insane as a theory for a lie to make up this 50 meters and then prove the 50 meters is wrong, but it's totally consistent with what probably actually happened if they were telling the truth about what they perceived.

These are more like real witness statements with real inconsistencies that are typical of what happens when multiple witnesses experience the same event.

Chandler initialed the statement with the "no coercion" clause saying there was no coercion. But if that doesn't satisfy you, has anybody ever asked Chandler in later decades if he was coerced to lie on his statement about the 50 meters statement made by Penniston, or anything else?

it's not accusing him of being a liar either.

Yes you are. You are accusing Chandler of lying on his statement when you imply they typed up a lie for him to initial and he initialed it. There's no getting around that, with your semantics.

a reply to: Gaos0

Why did Jim have more binary codes Gary?

I wrote to Col.Halt about them in July 2011

It was impossible for me to know what was in the codes
as I had not seen the cipher, I was well away from Jim
at that time , Also it was my understand there was
13 pages , and later It became 16.
Yet, what I wrote to Col.Halt contained
the same wording as what was in those three last
pages which came a year later to Joe.(eyes of your eyes) I am not saying that what
I saw and what Jim and I ciphered where the same message as it was not.
Just the eyes of your eye element. When I saw
the eyes of your eye thing in the book. I got the shock of my life.


I would like to understand what was happening to Jim
were he was producing more codes from dreaming.
Much like he dreamt of your 23.5.
As well as all the other elements which occurred
to him which seemed he was having some kind of contact
with something? All of this does require an explanation.
I often wondered re mind control aspects as the situation
was unreal. I did actually consult someone
to see if they could find me someone who could assist
the situation when I was with Jim. That very person
happens to the person Jim told of his alleged contact
with something.

Also I see on Johns face book quite the show down.

What is all this talk about John and been exposed
in something he has done.
If John has done something wrong which is
either fraudulent or underhanded, then
why is this not been presented with the evidence
rather than what we see now been spun out.
It is you which mentioned this to John in
your show down with him.

You also now say John was never important to you
But yet you were prepared to write a book with
John about his life and also to FIT in the binary
codes to the story? How was that going to happen
if he was not important let alone the codes?


The other thing you mention Gary, you say Jim does not
care what peoples opinions are of him.
If this is the case will he care should people not purchase
the new book?


Having a show down with John is not the way for good public relations.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I have taken note of what you have written and have relayed it to Jim. He says there ARE answers to that and Jim assures me he will tell all in the pending book. That's all I can say on the matter. So, whether you accept that answer or not, I will have to leave it there.

a reply to: Gaos0

Let's take a step back and look at this from a slightly different angle.
To give Jim the benefit of the doubt, there are precedents for this in the literature.
No names or dates, unfortunately, but I'd like to place a quote here from John Keel in The Mothman Prophecies p137 ...

"Some witnesses see an approaching aerial object with numbers clearly marked on it. As they study the numbers they lapse into a trance. In some cases, ancient lettering like Greek of Chinese appear on the object. The effect is the same. Months, even years, later the same percipient may again see the same numbers or letters on an object, or even on a set of licence plates or a sign, and again falls into a deep trance"

Now, you could say that the above scenario may explain the way that this strange message worked its way into Jim's consciousness or, if you like, you can say that someone read Keels book and decided to incorporate this into the RFI narrative.

Its worth pointing out that this quote is from a section where Keel is talking about posthypnotic suggestion. One of the effects of being a UFO witness.
Also an effect which can be achieved by humans.

A question for Gary.

Since we last had conversation, have you actually met Jim ?

Just wondering.

originally posted by: Gaos0
a reply to: Gaos0

The company OKM had chosen the glyphs from reading about Jim's account and seeing them in his notebook. The company based their symbols on the modified renditions of the glyphs. After their equipment was actually used to find and retrieve what the coordinates are leading to, the company then became a huge corporation in the future that invested in time travel, and so it was the company that sent the triangular 'time machine' craft back to 1980 with the glyphs on the side, so as to plant the seed that would lead to the find.
I'm astonished as to why no one has worked that out yet . . .

You yourself have cautioned about making assumptions.

One might similarly be astonished if someone associated with Jim contacted this company (or Future Treasure Inc. or Schatzsucher Magazin) or one of its hardware engineers, drew up an informal agreement which was carried forward for these symbols to be used on one of OKM's devices. The revelation of this, kept back until such a time as to help sell a time-travelling theory, and underscore the suggestion that ‘authentic’ binary co-o(r)dinates could be used to uncover an unknown artefact. Throw into the mix that Jim himself might have been in on it all and that his IP claim merely an alibi of sorts: “Jim wouldn’t have filed that if he were part of this deception”. In addition, this endeavour could try and paint Jim in a more favourable light; simply, that he was merely a victim of greater coincidence.

A loathsome conspiracy theory—note it is one I do not subscribe to—but it's dangerous where one might go, unchecked.

Of course, another assumption is that the company will go anywhere, uncover anything, or become a huge corporation. There appears to be more than a few disgruntled OKM users throughout the years (Google search: site:www.geotech1.com... OKM GPR).

Christian posted:

I am very sorry that I can not be any more positive but the units manufactured by OKM are in my opinion 100% junk and overpriced by several thousand % ... from what I have been reading on the various internet boards for years now, nobody who has ever bought this unit has made any reasonable findings.

But it is fair to say that that’s just one of a few user accounts and the comment was made around ten years ago.